Newsome v. Williams
| Decision Date | 05 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CV-141 |
| Parties | KENNETH NEWSOME, Petitioner, v. WARDEN WILLIAMS, FCI Gilmer, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
(GROH)
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [ECF No. 15] issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble on May 26, 2016. Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that this Court grant the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 5] and that the pro se Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the magistrate judge recommends that the Petitioner's Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 12 and 14] be denied. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's R&R, GRANTS the Respondent's motion and ORDERS that this case be dismissed.
Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for his preparation and submission of an R&R. Now, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court is required to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover, "[w]hen a party does make objections, but these objections are so general or conclusory that they fail to direct the district court to any specific error by the magistrate judge, de novo review is unnecessary." Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F. Supp. 2d 723, 730 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a party's right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In this case, the Petitioner timely filed his objections to the R&R, which were received by this Court on June 15, 2016.
In August of 2004, the Petitioner was arrested by state authorities in Georgia.1 Law enforcement officers suspected the Petitioner of shooting his wife and infant son. After the shooting, officers arrested the Petitioner in a hotel room. During an initial search of the hotel room, a detective found the gun that the Petitioner allegedly used in the shooting. In January of 2005, the Petitioner was "borrowed" by federal authorities pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosquendum. The Petitioner was tried and convicted in the Southern District of Georgia on a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). On February 6, 2006, the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Georgia sentenced the Petitioner to a 120-month term of imprisonment. The federal district court's judgment order was silent as to whether the Petitioner's federal sentence was to run consecutive to or concurrent with the Petitioner's anticipated state court sentence.
Shortly after his federal sentencing hearing, the Petitioner was returned to the custody of Georgia state authorities. After a trial, a jury in Chatham County, Georgia, found the Petitioner guilty of aggravated assault, aggravated stalking, cruelty to a child, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The Petitioner was held in state custody during the duration of his subsequent state sentence of imprisonment. He was released and returned to federal custody in 2013 to begin serving his federal sentence.
According to the Petitioner, it was upon arriving in federal custody in 2013 that he realized that his time spent in state custody was not being sufficiently credited towards his federal sentence. Believing that his federal and state sentences should have been deemed to run concurrently, the Petitioner requested that the Federal Bureau of Prisoners ("BOP") apply a nunc pro tunc designation to his case, pursuant to the BOP's authority to designate a state facility as the place of a federal prisoner's imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). This retroactive designation would have effectively caused the Petitioner's federal sentence to run concurrent to his completed state sentence, thereby reducing the time left on his federal sentence. The BOP denied the Petitioner's request.
On December 21, 2015, this Court received the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the BOP's determination. In addition to his argument that the BOP abused its discretion in denying his request for a nunc pro tunc retroactive designation, the Petitioner asserted that the BOP unlawfully denied him credit for time served, that he hadbeen unlawfully incarcerated in excess of the statutory maximum for his offense, and that his counsel was ineffective during sentencing. The Respondent opposed the petition by way of its Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed additional documents, which, construed liberally, constitute cross-motions for summary judgment against the Respondent. On May 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R, recommending that the Respondent's Motion be granted and that the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Petitioner filed objections to the R&R, and this matter is now ripe for review.
A responsive pleading captioned as a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, as a motion for summary judgment puts all parties on notice that a court could construe the motion either way. Laughlin v. Metro. Washington Airports Auth., 149 F.3d 253, 260 (4th Cir. 1998). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 states that "[i]f, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). However, the Court may consider documents attached to the complaint, as well as those attached to the motion to dismiss, "so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic." Sec'y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Blankenship v. Manchin, 471 F.3d 523, 526 n.1 (4th Cir. 2006)).
"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1356 (1990)). When reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must assume all of the allegations to be true, must resolve all doubts and inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and must view the allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243-44 (4th Cir. 1999). But a complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A complaint that offers "labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Likewise, a complaint that tenders only "naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement" does not suffice. Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A plaintiff is required to articulate facts that, when accepted as true, "show" he is plausibly entitled to relief. Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not 'show[n]'—'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 () (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
Summary judgment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled tojudgment in its favor as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A genuine issue exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus, the Court must conduct "the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial—whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Id. at 250.
The party opposing summary judgment "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). That is, once the movant has met its burden to show an absence of material fact, the party opposing summary judgment must then come forward with affidavits or other evidence demonstrating there is indeed a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-35; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial